Oxtung

I'd like to see some of the newer statistics added to the big screens when they flash up a players batting line. Why can't we have both BA/OBP/SLG, HR's, 2B's, etc... and OPS, xFIP, WAR?

Thorpe might have ended up as a 1st round pick, but that is anything from a guarantee. Being left handed and touching 95mph is a big advantage but in and of itself doesn't guarantee 1st round status. According to MLB.com's early 2014 draft list Justus Scheffield is a 6'1" lefty who touches 94 but they only rank him 39th. Alex Verdugo same stats, 37th. Mac Marshall they peg at 34. In the 2013 draft Stephen Tarpley was a 6'2" lefty that touched 94mph and ended up going in the 3rd round. The Twins own Gonsalves didn't go until the 4th round. The reason I'm more willing to believe in Stewart right now is simple. He was scouted extremely well by anybody and everybody. The scouts love his mix, velocity and athleticism. It seems that he has the potential to be a frontline starter. On the other hand Thorpe was comparatively unknown out of Australia. He had no where near the number of people watching him play and critiquing him and even less since he added the velocity. From what I've seen scouts think his upside at this point is mid-rotation starter. Right or wrong Thorpe has more hurdles to jump through because he is an international signee. IMO he either needs to be getting unbelievable reports from the scouts or he needs to show me that he is still dominant when he reaches full season ball. Perhaps he'll get to the Twins and be Johan part duex. Perhaps not. At this point it is way too early to tell, which has been my only point all along.

I agree with Thrylos for the most part. I don't see his Aussie league numbers as being particularly dominant. He pitched well. That means more than if Hendriks posted the same numbers but the definition of dominant doesn't change based on some bodies age. IMO his numbers mean little when evaluating his future potential at this point. There many guys that post great numbers in the GCL but turn out to be nothing. For me he wouldn't be a top 10 prospect because he is so far away still. Lets talk 2 years from now when he has played at Cedar Rapids.

It is a lot harder to hide an everyday player that will have to get a few hundred at bats and play several hundred innings in the field. There is a reason it has only happened one time in the last decade from single A.

I've seen this posted a couple of times. Nobody has been able to back that statement up with any evidence. You may well be right but personally I'd like to see some statistics in the matter. There definitely are guys who are left unprotected because they are drafted. In the last decade though only one as low as A-ball has stuck with the drafting team. He was a SS that could be used at multiple positions and had speed enough to be a pinch runner on an NL team. I cant see a way Kepler would have been taken and certainly not how he would have stuck.

I agree with Jim H, Correia wouldn't bring back much of value currently. There are other options out there that could be had for just money instead of money and prospects. The trade deadline will be when Correia could bring back something useful. Perhaps a future bullpen piece, a young guy at A ball the Twins like, or perhaps a guy like Gilmartin who is talented but has been injured or just couldn't put it all together.

re:Mauer and BABIP regression and a continuing increase in his K%. For this round I'll use Joe's career averages except in K% which will be 20%. That would be right in line with the rate at which his K% has been increasing over the last 4 seasons. For 2014, with the above assumptions, Joe Mauer's batting line would look like: .286/.370/.414 OPS: .784 We can see now that a drop to career norms in BABIP and a slight rise in his K% has a pretty drastic effect on his stat line. We can also see why the statistical models are predicting a fall in his offensive statistics. Now, he is moving to first base. Perhaps that will allow him to stay healthier. That in turn might increase his power slightly thereby directly raising his SLG. It also might allow him to barrel up more balls leading to more line drives leading to a higher than average BABIP which in turn would lead to higher numbers across the board. Though remember that last year he was 3rd in the league already in LD% and above league average by over 6%. This was well above even his own career norms. Expecting him to again post a career high in LD% seems a bit much, it seems likely there will be some regression to the mean. How much is certainly arguable because of the move to first base. To me it seems entirely likely that he will see a decrease in LD% from last season leading to a drop in BABIP and his K% will rise slightly. Combined I believe that Mauer will see a decrease in his production. When factoring in his move to first base I believe an OPS in the .815 range is entirely possible, perhaps even probable.

re:Mauer & BABIP (Batting Average on Balls in Play) BABIP is how often a ball put in play lands for a hit. League average hovers around .300 usually. Mauer's career BABIP average is .349 and last season it sat at a ridiculous .383. Let's compare Mauer's 2013 both with a .383 BABIP, a .349 BABIP and a league average .300. Mauer's 2013 stats w/ .383 BABIP .324/.404/.476 OPS:880 Mauer's 2013 stats w/ .349 BABIP .294/.378/.434 OPS:.812 Mauer's 2013 stats w/.300 BABIP .254/.343/.375 OPS:.718 As we can see Mauer's BABIP has a huge effect on his offensive productivity. Now Mauer has some advantages when it comes to BABIP, namely that he hits an above average percentage of balls for line drives. Line drives fall in for hits almost 50% more frequently than flyballs or ground balls. Joe hits roughly 4% more balls for line drives than the average player for his career. In 2013 he had a career year, 27.7% of his contact were line drives. That is nearly 6.5% better than league average. You can see why his 2013 BABIP, and his career average BABIP, was so high. Hit more line drives, more balls land for hits, your BABIP is higher. Your BABIP is higher and you get more hits which leads to a higher batting average, on base percentage and slugging. Next up we look at what happens if his BABIP regresses and his K% continues to climb for a fifth straight year.

re:Mauer Mauer's K rate is very worrisome. Let's look at how it affected him in 2013. He K'd in 17.4% of his at-bats up from 9.1% in 2009. That means he's putting the ball in play 8% less often. He had 508 PA's in 2013. That means he missed out on putting the ball in play 41 times over the course of the year (this would be higher but his season was cut short because of the concussion). His BABIP was .383 meaning he missed out on 16 hits last season. When you add those into his 2013 stats his average goes from .324 to .360. His OBP rises to .435 from .404. Mauer's SLG would rise to .515. His final line, if he was striking out at the same rate as 2010, would be .360/.435/.515. His OPS would be .950, up from .880. So, because Mauer struck out 8% more often his OPS dropped 70 points. That is significant. His K% over the last four seasons: 9, 11, 14, 18. What if it rises again this season? Next I'll look at how his BABIP affected his numbers.

Interesting that he is still so high on Rosario and Kepler while the other lists have dropped both of them a bit. His comments on tall pitchers and career WAR is scary. If Meyer doesn't pan out we are in some big trouble. That would put us down to one potential frontline pitcher (assuming we don't draft one in 2014) and he probably won't be ready for several years. If Meyer fails does anybody think the Twins will trade for or buy a #1 starter? Taking a different tack, it seems that most of the prospect guys looked at Berrios and believed that he wore down a bit in the second half of the season and that's why his first half, second half splits were so bad. That's reassuring.

Hadn't seen that one yet. MLB.com says he's a 60 Hit, 60 Power, 55 Field. BA says he has the best hit tool, best defensive infielder and is the best athlete in the Athletics organization; though his actual scouting report is behind the paywall as is Baseball Prospectus'. If he is as good a hitter as Law thinks than I agree that it would be a good trade. Russell doesn't seem to have the concerns about sticking at SS which is huge from a positional value perspective and can potentially make up for the lower power potential compared to Baez and Correa. I think I'd still rather have Lindor the most but as I said earlier that is my own biases showing up.

Correa is already 6'4" tall as a 19 year old. He is athletic for his size so he might stick but that is hardly a given at this point.

My gut reactions was yes, across the board. A SS is so much more valuable than a 3B, but you make some good points. I'd probably say Bogaerts? Yes. Baez? Yes. Correa? Yes. Lindor? Definately. Russell? No. Correa, Baez and Bogaerts seem like pretty obvious yeses to me. They both might stick at SS and even if they don't they'll be better defenders at 3B with only a slight offensive drop (if there is even any, Baez looks like he could match Sano). Lindor to me is the easiest of the group to me. An elite defender at SS that can also be a 1 or 2 hitter. Does that even exist in the game right now? Ian Desmond and Elvis Andrus might be closest. Russell....not sure. Probably not. As you said he's not on the same level offensively and not elite defensively as the others.

I appreciate the good replies to my previous comments. The civility displayed was appreciated. I like it when we can all act like adults and bring our differing viewpoints to the table without getting into shouting matches. I will try and touch on many of the points you made but don't want to be as long winded this time. First let me try and clarify my position a bit, again remember that I'm not trying to pick on any person in particular and this isn't really limited to just this thread. I think what really perturbs me is when a poster enters a thread that is clearly about a mathematical model or metric and makes an argument along the lines of "Well my gut says this can't be true therefore this is a terrible and worthless model and deserves no consideration." Ok, perhaps a bit of hyperbole in that last sentence. I'm not sure how that helps to further the discussion. I have no problem with people pointing out flaws in the methodology like Psuedo did earlier. He is absolutely right that often times there are some biases involved. Though sometimes those are base off of sound statistical analysis. For instance it is true, as a whole, that players tend to regress beginning in their late 20's or early 30's. Now, that isn't player specific, it would be great if we could narrow down the causes and be more selective in the application of regression, but statistical analysis is clearly not at that point yet. Expecting it to be is being unrealistic. I also fully accept and understand that not all people are interested in statistical analysis either because they don't have the time or the desire to dive into it. That's just fine. When my engineering friends start talking about how the Boeing Dreamliner decided to use titanium alloy A instead of alloy B my eyes start to glaze over. BTW JB, totally agree on Parker's analysis. On the other hand just because you don't understand the analysis is not a good reason to claim that a statistical model is wrong or not worth using. If you don't understand it then ask a question to clarify. Why does this model predict such a big drop in OPS for Mauer? It turns out that there are reasons to question his ability to maintain his great hitting. He is striking out much more frequently than earlier in his career. The more you strike out the lower your batting average and OBP. On a side note I highly recommend you look into ERA+ (or ERA- if you prefer fangraphs) Hosken. It essentially balances ERA for ballpark and league. After all a 4.00 ERA in Coors Field isn't the same as a 4.00 ERA at Target field and when you're facing a pitcher every 9th batter that's very different than facing David Ortiz. ERA+ adjusts for these things to make it easier to compare players. I recognize that not all statistical analysis is particularly well done. And if there are better alternatives out there it would be great if you would pass those along. For instance, bringing this discussion back to the topic at hand, you know of an alternative model or human prognosticator that is correct more than 70% of the time than great. We could all agree than that this model needs more work to be up to the highest standards. Again though, just saying being correct 70% of the time is terrible therefore this is useless doesn't really add much to the conversation. If the alternatives are your gut, which we have no idea how accurate it is, or another model that is only correct 60% of the time, well then 70% is looking pretty darn good. Psuedo, when it comes to determining the accuracy of models that predict future results it is pretty easy to determine whether their biases are accurate or not. After the season you just have to go back and see how often they were correct. That's the beauty of quantitative analysis. As I said earlier if you think STEAMER, ZIPS, PECOTA, etc... is a better choice, great. Let us know why that is better (or why you think you're a better prognosticator ). Statistical models or metrics take A LOT of time to create. Somebody has taken their off work hours and worked their butts off trying to create a tool of value. So when I see people glance at one aspect of the analysis and determine it doesn't fit their world view or gut feeling and then dismiss the whole project as being worthless it frustrates me. Perhaps we should have a thread dedicated to predicting the standings at the end of the season. Then we can compare our intuition to the statistical analysis. Perhaps the mods could even make a special title for a person that beats all the rest of us and the statistical models. They could be called The Prognosticator King. We could do something similar for OPS or even BA/OBP/SLG, though that seems harder to judge after the season. Well I've created another opus. Truly I need to learn how to be more concise.

Isn't the reason Homer Bailey is thought to be available because he wouldn't sign an extension with the Reds but instead wanted to hit FA? I like your idea of searching for an above average pitcher via trade though. Not trying to throw this too far off topic or to rekindle the starting pitcher debates but your analysis seems to be pretty....optimistic. IMO not many other teams would consider Ricky Nolasco a #2 starter (and many wouldn't even consider him a #3) or Phil Hughes a #3 starter. I do know that Nolasco was the #4 starter for the Dodgers last year and Phil Hughes made the Yankee's rotation in only 2 of their 5 playoffs. I think your rotation would look more like: 2/3) Santana1 3/4) Nolasco 3-5) Pelfrey2 5) Hughes 5) Crapshoot 1 Santana can certainly pitch like a #2 but is he consistent enough to be labeled as such? 2Who knows what the Twins will get from Pelfrey. Could be anything from Yeah! to OMG Gouge my eyes out. Reminds me a lot of Liriano in that way.

I wonder if he could be being comped to Puig, Cespedes, Ichiro, etc... My gut (oh god did I just say that after my stupid rant?!?) tells me that imports from other major leagues both succeed more frequently than prospects but also have much better first seasons. I have absolutely nothing to back that up with though.

This is something that has been bothering me re:statistical modeling both in regards to this application but more in relation to all modeling and metrics with a baseball slant whether that is WAR, SIERA, xFIP, PECOTA, Steamer or whatever. There is a certain segment of the baseball consuming public that latches onto these new mathematical analysis tools and thinks they are great. They are helping to enhance our understanding of the game. On the opposite end of the spectrum there is a segment of fans that seems to feel that these tools weren't needed by the greats of the past and they aren't needed now. There is nothing new that needs to be learned about the game and any attempt to replace RBI's and Wins and Runs Scored and whatever else with a new statistic is anathema. I am not trying to pigeon hole anyone here on this board into either of these groups, certainly not meaning to imply anything about Old Nurse so please don't be offended. There are as many positions on this subject as there are frequnecies in the EM spectrum, surely. These just seem to be the opposite ends of that pendulum. I certainly identify myself with the former group. I love using math as a way to view the world. I find that it helps to clarify things if I can use quantitative analysis. So, I freely admit that I am biased towards these new constructs because of my larger world view. OK enough rambling...to my point. In the quoted post the author states that this model is grossly wrong 30% of the time. For simplicities sake let's assume that means the metric is mostly correct 70% of the time. The implied message being that this is a worthless tool and shouldn't be given much credence. My question is what is the alternative? "Gut feeling"? There is a place in the world for "gut feelings" for certain, but by and large they aren't very accurate. Look no further than houses of gambling, NCAA tournament brackets, the lottery, or the ever popular "how many jelly beans are in this jar" game if you're unsure. In fact my guess is most statistical modeling is derived from a desire to get away from gut feeling guesses. So here are my questions: Is there an alternative to both statistical modeling and gut feelings? Is it more accurate? How accurate is human intuition? How well did Keith Law, Jayson Stark or Gleeman and the Geek do at predicting 2013's final standings? How good is your intuition? If you want me to believe that a computer model is crappy than show me what I should be paying attention to instead, please. Sorry, this turned into much more of a rant than I meant it to be and considerably longer. I obviously don't know what the word concise means and got a double helping of verbose instead. Again Old Nurse and everyone else, this was not directed at you specifically, your post was just the tipping point to something that had been bubbling up within me for a while. TL : DR My point was not to offend with this but rather to say, if you want me to believe you, show some evidence that there is a better alternative. 70% correct is clearly not perfect, but if the alternative is only correct 60% of the time, isn't that a step in the right direction?

I am a bit late but have been away from the site for awhile and am trying to catch up (damn work...). I find it very interesting and, given the meme "the Twins move prospects too slowly", very unTwins like that the Twins might jump Stuart Turner from the Appy league to the FSL. Is it because Turner is so advanced defensively? Because there was an opening in the organizational depth chart? Are you reading the tea leaves of minor league FA signings so far? Is there a historical precedence? You have been following the Twins minor leagues much more closely and longer than myself so any insight you could provide would be appreciated.

A bit late on this but I've been away from the site for awhile (damn work...). I think it is interesting that you jumped Stuart Turner from the Appy league to the FSL. That seems very...unTwins like. I have certainly not been following the Twins minor league system as long or as closely as you. Is there a historical precedent for this? Did you jump him because he is so advanced defensively or because there just happened to be an opening at A+? A bit of both? Are you reading the tea leaves based on the minor league FA signings made thus far? I find it an interesting move so any incite you can offer is appreciated.

I am a bit late to this party but Joe was one heck of an athlete at one point. I'm sure most know this but as a refresher in case it was forgotten, not only was he drafted #1 in baseball but he also was the National HS Football Player of the Year and the #1 recruit in the nation his senior season. In basketball he was named to the All-State team in both his junior and senior seasons. Now, how Joe would handle the hot corner after a decade behind the dish.... *shrug*. I have no doubts however that had the Twins moved him to 3B in the minors that he would have been gold glove caliber there as well.

Ahhh, got it now. Interesting hypothetical. Do you get a better "read" on a player if you see them play 10 times over a 2 month span or 10 times over a full 5 month season where you can see how they are improving. Don't know.

That's fair enough. In the end small distinctions like this really come down to what you ultimately are looking for in a SS. All else being equal, namely that we aren't trying to fit a player into an existing lineup that is full of Power or OBP guys so you aren't looking for a specific fit, I'd choose the elite defensive player that will OPS .775 over the average defender that is going to OPS .875. It's just what I'm looking for at shortstop so that is why I would rate Lindor so high. Obviously if you have different tastes you'll appreciate one of the other SS more. In the end though I think we can all agree it would be damn nice to have any of those SS in our system!!

I think we all can get behind that hope!

I wonder if they don't predict great things for Pinto, Sano, et al. because for every Wil Meyers that enters the league there are two Pedro Florimons or Parmelees. When you're being comped with other first year players I have to believe the numbers of Florimons outweigh the number of Meyers significantly and therefore drag the expectations way down.

Here is a chart showing Mauer's K%, BABIP and batting average on a yearly basis. [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] Year K% BABIP Average 2005 11.6 .322 .294 2006 8.9 .364 .347 2007 10.8 .319 .293 2008 7.9 .342 .328 2009 10.4 .373 .365 2010 9.1 .348 .327 2011 11.4 .319 .287 2012 13.7 .364 .319 2013 17.5 .383 .324 [/TABLE] We can see that in the years that his BABIP is high and his K% is low, like 2006, he has a very high batting average. In years that his BABIP is high and his K% is high, like 2012, we can see that his average is still high but not as high as 2006. In years that his BABIP is "low" (yet still above league average) and his K% is high his batting average takes a big hit like in 2011. Now notice the last four years of his K%. It has risen from 9.1% all the way to 17.5% and it is rising very consistently, there doesn't seem to be any spiking. This to me says that Joe is just getting older. His reflexes or perhaps understanding of the strike zone just aren't what they used to be. That doesn't bode well for his batting average. As we can see in 2013 if his BABIP is high enough (somewhere around .300 is league average) it can compensate for his increase in strikeouts. I think that we can all see that if Joe's K% remains high, like the last four years suggest, and his BABIP regresses, like it should, that he is unlikely to continue his impressive batting average and OBP. I think this is part of why all of these models predict that Joe Mauer will not be as productive in 2014 as he was in 2013. Unless he either has another lucky year re:BABIP or his K% trend turns around. Does anyone want to make a pitch as to why either of those should be expected? I'm feeling a little pessimistic at the moment after looking at these trends and could use some hope. On the bright side his BB% is as high as it ever has been. That doesn't seem to be effected. If anyone wants to do some more research into why Joe is striking out more that would be very interesting to know. Is it strikes looking? Called Strikes? Has his "strike zone" gotten larger and so he has to "defend" a larger area? All interesting questions, IMO I just don't have time to look into it currently.